Posted on 08/16/2002 12:37:18 PM PDT by rightwing2
The best available numbers of Gulf War casualties are:
The United States suffered 148 killed in action, 458 wounded, 121 killed in nonhostile actions and 11 female combat deaths.
In June 1991 the U.S. estimated that more than 100,000 Iraqi soldiers died, 300,000 were wounded, 150,000 deserted, and 60,000 were taken prisoner. Many human rights groups claimed a much higher numbers of Iraqi killed in action.
The stops are out to save Saddam's ass. Why? There is more to this "Save Saddam" movement than claims of Constitutionality and legal rights to get him.
Now Saddam knows that if we go to war with Iraq, we are going after him personally. From his standpoint he will have nothing to lose by using every weapon in his arsenal because he will die regardless.
Perhaps, but you can apply the same reasoning to his age. When he has nukes and deployable CB weapons, what prevents a pyschopath with a Saldin complex from going out with the big bang?
So thatt begs the question, do we wait or do we act.
You also presuppose that we are going to reenact the Gulf War scenario. I'm not convinced we will go that route.
The problem we face with Iraq is what an engineer calls "risk managment." The "risk" represented by an adverse scenario has to be compared with the cost of eliminating it (or, in turn, with any other risks which might be generated by a proposed solution, etc.).
The "limp wrists" of whom you speak have apparently never sat down and gone through the disciplined thought processes of assessing the risks in a brutally honest way. The article at the top of this thread is a good example of talking about the issues while completely evading the necessary decisionmaking exercise.
The risk is defined by:
[the magnitude of the seriousness of an adverse scenario] x [the probability of that adverse scenario]
It is important to look at the numbers! It is especially important to notice that:
1) The first term in the risk formula is HUGE. Suitcase nukes and/or Ebola virus (if Saddam ever gets them) could kill literally MILLIONS of Americans.
2) The second term is not zero. If we stretch out the timetable very much longer, it is going to become HUGE, TOO.
That being the case, we don't have any choice other than a proactive, pre-emptive strike to remove Saddam. We must make a decisive strike to eliminate the risk. We should choose the kind of strike which minimizes the fall-out (other "risks"), but we don't have time to study it to death to decide whether the "costs" are too "risky" themselves.
My point is that even if the model is a little more involved than the assessment of a single risk term, we already have an argumentative framework for our decision to strike. (Bush has figured this much out, but the geese on Capitol Hill haven't. I guess that's why they aren't Presidential material.)
As I indicated above, a quick assessment of other terms in the larger equation might change how we decide to take Saddam out, but the nature of the problem is such that it can't change the basic decision. Heck, what we have staring at us right now is already too great a risk.
Tying the whole thing to proving Iraqi complicity in 9/11 is a big mistake. It misses the point of what we are facing as a nation.
The Dick Armeys and the other footdraggers are just typical of what today's Republicans have become. They are afraid to fight. Fighting is not nice. Someone might get hurt.
(This is one of the reasons for the ascendancy of the Dems in our day. Dick Armey hasn't thought about the risks to the Republic if the conservatives don't start fighting the Dems tooth-and-toenail, by the way!)
Yeah, the US has never ever gotten criticized for or accused of secret covert ops to mess around with other countries' governments. As long as our meddling isn't overtly militaristic we'll be insulated from the criticism that we are a bully. < /sarcasm >
It's not the Iraqi people that are the problem, it is Saddam. Doesn't eveyone agree on that, so let's get rid of him and see what happens.
I think that would be the point of any war with Iraq, yes.
Not so simple. You have to take him out and his thousands of Republic Guard supporters (who together control the country). That will, of course, be the objective. But it will not be a piece of cake. Once they're out, we'll have won.
For the sake of the Lord- we prodded him into invading Iran in 1980 to contain Radical Islam remember! He was our good guy then! And when he went off the farm and invaded Kuwait we swatted him down but left him in place because we feared the Shites would take over (and we wept alot of crocodile tears over that when we allowed the Republican Guards to crush the revolt we had encouraged.)
Sadaam is not a major supporter of terrorism (The money he gives to the families of suicide bombers in Palestine is propaganda designed to negate the growing Islamic Radicalism in his own coutnry. Does anyone care about the nature of his regime and why we valued it in the first place as a friend just 12 years ago? Invading Iraq has zero to do with defeating Radical Islam, Al Queda, or 9/11 and everything to do with some policy wonk notions of "national greatness". I don't think even Isreal really wants to see Sadaam go.
The only reason for the necessity of showing such a link is to appease who can't think for themselves. Saddam's WMD machine is a huge threat to the United States and its citizens, as well as other countries who are on the same path (North Korea, Iran). THAT's the reason he needs to be taken out. Otherwise, we just wait for those weapons to be used. As president, Bush is risking all (American lives, his presidency, world condemnation, etc. etc.) to do what he (correctly) believes to be necessary for the safety and protection of American citizens. He is right, and he is brave. We have a common sense man and a leader for a change in the White House. We are a thousand times safer with Bush in that spot, than with appease-a-terrorist-Clinton - the man who set us up for 9/11.
They are heros to me too. But they have chosen to serve, voluntarily, in our military and to subject themselves to civilian rule. They know what that means.
It's quite credible, given all the failed but serious attempts to disprove it. For a number of reasons, it's quite likely that Saddam was informed of 9/11 before it happened. And, really, terrorists and spies operate frequently in the open. Information can be passed or transferred quite readily without an open conversation.
Well said.
But - hey- let's forget the mountains of evidence that point to factions within Saudi Arabia and Eygpt and go after the boogeyman that is popular in the American beer swilling moron mind- even though his regime is diametrically opposed and threatened by and hated by the same Islamo fascists that crashed three planes into our soul on 9/11. What I find obscene is your willingness to ignore this and go after the wrong man and wrong country.
You want me to support a war? I support a war against Saudi Arabia, Eygpt and Syria before Iraq. To see one soldier die fighting Iraq in the name of 9/11 will be a lie.
That's about it for me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.